[patcon]

> a) not enough people who can afford to do so engage in philanthropy, and b) philanthropic funding isn't quasi-democratically distributed. I have to imagine that (a) is a much, much bigger issue than (b)

Consider philanthropy funding as actions that terraform the future. The future is where all possibilities unfold, so shaping future landscape pays dividends to the worldview of those who materialize it.

I would propose that if (b) is miscalibrated and inequitable, it might affect everything, including (a), much more than we assume.

But also, I'm not trying to claim I know that one is more important, just that they're both quite important and very interrelated :)

[YossarianFrPrez]

Ah, interesting. So what (I think) you are saying is that if there is enough of the right type of philanthropic, in-kind donation more people will be able to donate in the future. I will admit the possibility that there may be a clever way of of doing in-kind donations that isn't wide-spread. Sort of akin to ranked-choice-voting but for donor matching.